Australia

They are not illegal immigrants, they are LEGAL asylum seekers.

Might want to do some research on that point, mate.

 

If they're "legal" asylum seekers then why are they being detained?

 

Because we must determine if they are legal or not - we can never be sure. By the way, over 90% of boat people are determined to be legal asylum seekers.

 

Good question.

We have been asking 2 different governments that for over 10 years.

 

Then until that determination is made they're "illegal" asylum seekers.

 

No, you're not illegal at anything until determined. That's not how the law works.

Almost all (96%) of "boat people" are determined by to be legal refugees. Over 90% of illegal immigrants arrive by plane and the government doesn't care about them at all.

 

No, they are still legal. We just have to process them. They are always considered to be legal until proven otherwise.

 

They are not Muslims! The government and the general public only care about you if you have funny colored skin and follow a religion that isn't Christian.

 

The real buffon was the judge who made such a 'politically correct' ruling and the idiots who pursued an innocent man on the simple premise that they disagreed with his side of politics. And we were forced to see an ex- Aboriginal leader, who was kicked out of his postion in his community for thuggery and misuse of funds under his control, shouting some inanities as he was leaving the court. The same person who was also accused or raping an Aboriginal woman, although I can't remember if a conviction was recorded.

The whole case was an absolute joke and a travesty of justice, and we are waiting to see if it will be appealed. The verdict has not been very well received by the legal profession, even by some who are not often on the (political) side of the accused.

It was a political trial,and no more. The result of this trial will encourage more and more 'pretend' Aboriginals to rort the system.

 

Bolt revealed the outrageous abuse of the system by 'pretend 'aboriginals in this country.No wonder they took him to court!

 

The defamation laws in the USA are much more broad than in OZ. I have mentioned this before. If the Watergate event had occurred in Australia it would probably have never been revealed.

 

WE will decide who is a legal and who is not, and not some distant UN officio, reclining in some comfortable chair with no responsbiilty for his/her actions.

They should keep their collective noses out of our jurisdiction!

 

Bolt told lies.

He was caught.

 

Bolt revealed nothing apart from his propensity for racist tirades against non existent events. There is little evidence any "white skinned " pretend aboriginals are "rorting the system" and living the luxurious high life at taxpayers expense. To start with it is ludicrous to suggest the level of skin colour reflects ones degree of aboriginality.

 

Bizarre post since the procedure Mak outlined is aimed at identifying who is genuine and who is not. The point stands that all asylum seekers are deemed legal until proven otherwise.

 

No. YOU don't decide anything.

You just sit back, sip your warm cocoa and listen to Alan Jones. And everybody else ignores you.

 

'Almost all (96%) of "boat people" are determined by to be legal refugees. Over 90% of illegal immigrants arrive by plane and the government doesn't care about them at all.[/QUOTE]'

I have seen this written before but I have never seen it proven. It is regularlay trotted out like some Nazi propoganda so beloved by Goebells, where you repeat a lie enough times, eventually everyone will believe it to be true. Over stayers are often just that overstayers, and they eventually (most of them) return from whence they came. So they can't all be classified as 'illegals', unless you have your own biased (and distorted) political agenda, of course.

If you are illegal you should be immiedately returned from whence you came,but of course,many of ttese illegals throw away their passports. I wonder why? Can any genius out there can answer that question?

 

Who is this "innocent man" you speak of?

Not Bolt. He defamed 9 individuals and was found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act.

He was guilty.

 

I listen to nobody to make up my mind and certainly not to legal beagles and their minions in the press, who desperately, and at any cost to our democratic way of life, want the judiciary to usurp the power of Parliament.

 

Seeking asylum is legal.

Sorry - I know that doesn't fit your racist agenda - but there you go.

Just like what Bolt did was illegal. He was found to be racist.

Sorry old man - but racism is not acceptable, and in some cases illegal. you need to learn to accept this.

 

The judgement was BS made out to placate a mob of cashed up activists encouraged by a well known activist thug. No amount of 'sacred' paraphenlia will hide his sins.

 

Nice work.

When things don't go your way - you can always rely on insane paranoia.

Tony Abbott would be proud of you

 

This pathetic judgement will be challenged and found to be a detriment to our democratic way of life, made to simply suit a minority living of the hog of Government sinecures.

Let freedom shine through the higher corridors of the Judiciary and stamp out Political Correctness, because that's all this judgment represents.

 

..but what was "BS"

Are you claiming that Bolt was not defamatory?

Why?

Could you please give some explanation?

What did you hear in the case that the Judge missed?

Careful now - you are heading towards litigation yourself the way you are talking.

Telling lies is not protected under any law - and you are telling lies.

Now - would you like to make a sensible comment?

 

When did defamation become part of our " democratic way of life"?

It has. Freedom has shone through. Bolt was found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act by defaming people because of their Aboriginality.

Defamation is illegal. Bolt was caught.

Why do you want to defend him?